Evolution, or All You Need is Time

I propose public schools do not teach creation science or intelligent design along-side evolution. But I DO propose public schools teach the WHOLE truth about evolution.

Let's say I am a creationist, and it is my desire to see creationism taught alongside evolution in public schools. But, I was convinced that was not going to happen, so I proposed an alternative solution--teach evolution, but also teach its fallacies (or, its loopholes). The teacher might say "we're not sure how matter was first created," or "we don't know what (or who) was the prime mover, or uncaused first cause," or "we teach species moved from simple to complex, but the world around us demonstrates things move from complex to simple." Or, as C.S. Lewis puts it, "Nature never restores order where disorder has once occurred" (C.S. Lewis, Miracles, p. 199).

We see the same evidence. Operational (empirical) science can be observed and repeated in a laboratory. Historic (origins) science deals with the past, which is not accessible to direct experimentation. Since even the most basic cell (or any matter) can not be generated in a laboratory, then all that is based on the study of such organisms must be based ultimately on faith (no human was there to witness the origin of these organisms). Therefore, both creationists AND evolutionists ultimately rest their findings on faith, though their journeys will encounter fact along the way. We both see the same evidence, only we interpret that evidence differently (incidentally, the evidence we do find corresponds with what we would expect from a global deluge: millions of dead things in layers of rock all over the world). The difference between myself and an atheist is that my presumption of the possibility of God and therefore miracles is not zero. Theirs is. Faith rests squarely upon reason, with the added component of revelation.

I am not an advocate of teaching "intelligent design" or creationism in place of, or even along side of, evolution. I would just like to see schools teach evolution as it is, warts and all.

It does not answer (or even address) the "matter" of matter; that is, how did it get here (ex nihilo nihilo fit)?

It is not based on a fossil record, because there is no fossil record--only fossils (with gaps in between). Evolutionists (led by Jay Gould) accommodated this fact in 1972 by introducing "punctuated equilibrium." Ironic, since this is exactly what Genesis says about creation: punctiliar--all at once, or sudden appearance.

It does not address the second law of thermodynamics, which meets the evolutionary theory only as it passes in opposite directions. Matter does not give rise to new information.

I believe if evolution was taught this way, it would generate more questions than it could answer. This is a good thing. Are we trying to hide something from the students? Are we afraid of what may be discovered? Isn't education all about exploration? Doesn’t science progress by always questioning and leaving even cherished theories open to reinterpretation? Isn’t science all about following the evidence wherever it leads? Well, in theory, yes. Practically, scientists are human, too, and often don’t like it when favorite ideas are reexamined. Academic freedom apparently only applies to disagreeing with details about evolution but not evolution itself.

Empirically speaking, one should be able to take me to a laboratory, and show me (I lived in Missouri) matter moving from a state of randomness to a state of specified complexity. And I mean ON A GRAND SCALE, AS EVOLUTIONISTS CLAIM. You might as well ask me to watch a tornado plow through a junk yard and assemble a 747. Or take a handful of Scrabble letters and throw them on the floor assembling themselves into a coherent sentence. Or watch my cat walk on this keyboard ultimately writing a book. I know crystals have some degree of order, but not specified. For me to say to you LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE means very little if nothing. For me to say "I love you very much and enjoyed every time I visited you" means something. Likewise, to see a perfectly six-sided snowflake or an ice crystal is one thing. To walk past "The Resting Horseman" at the V&A museum in London assuming it just happened to appear like the snowflake is another.

I’m sure public schools teach students about the scientific contributions of the following people. I am also sure the same schools don’t tell their students all these men were creationists.

Early

• Francis Bacon (1561–1626) Scientific method

• Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) Physics, Astronomy

• Johann Kepler (1571–1630) Scientific astronomy

• Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) Hydrostatics; Barometer

• Robert Boyle (1627–1691) Chemistry; Gas dynamics

• John Ray (1627–1705) Natural history

• Isaac Barrow (1630–1677) Professor of Mathematics

• Thomas Burnet (1635–1715) Geology

• Increase Mather (1639–1723) Astronomy

• Nehemiah Grew (1641–1712) Medical Doctor, Botany

The Age of Newton

• Isaac Newton (1642–1727) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator)

• Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646–1716) Mathematician

• John Flamsteed (1646–1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder; Astronomy

• William Derham (1657–1735) Ecology

• Cotton Mather (1662–1727) Physician

• John Harris (1666–1719) Mathematician

• John Woodward (1665–1728) Paleontology

• William Whiston (1667–1752) Physics, Geology

• John Hutchinson (1674–1737) Paleontology

• Johathan Edwards (1703–1758) Physics, Meteorology

• Carolus Linneaus (1707–1778) Taxonomy; Biological classification system

• Jean Deluc (1727–1817) Geology

• Richard Kirwan (1733–1812) Mineralogy

• William Herschel (1738–1822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus (probably believed in an old-earth)

• James Parkinson (1755–1824) Physician (old-earth compromiser)

• John Dalton (1766–1844) Atomic theory; Gas law

• John Kidd, M.D. (1775–1851) Chemical synthetics (old-earth compromiser)

Just Before Darwin

• Timothy Dwight (1752–1817) Educator

• William Kirby (1759–1850) Entomologist

• Jedidiah Morse (1761–1826) Geographer

• Benjamin Barton (1766–1815) Botanist; Zoologist

• John Dalton (1766–1844) Father of the Modern Atomic Theory; Chemistry

• Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology (old-earth compromiser)

• Samuel Miller (1770–1840) Clergy

• Charles Bell (1774–1842) Anatomist

• John Kidd (1775–1851) Chemistry

• Humphrey Davy (1778–1829) Thermokinetics; Safety lamp

• Benjamin Silliman (1779–1864) Mineralogist (old-earth compromiser)

• Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869) Physician; Physiologist

• Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847) Professor (old-earth compromiser)

• David Brewster (1781–1868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope (probably believed in an old-earth)

• William Buckland (1784–1856) Geologist (old-earth compromiser)

• William Prout (1785–1850) Food chemistry (probably believed in an old-earth)

• Adam Sedgwick (1785–1873) Geology (old-earth compromiser)

• Michael Faraday (1791–1867) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator

• Samuel F.B. Morse (1791–1872) Telegraph

• John Herschel (1792–1871) Astronomy (old-earth compromiser)

• Edward Hitchcock (1793–1864) Geology (old-earth compromiser)

• William Whewell (1794–1866) Anemometer (old-earth compromiser)

• Joseph Henry (1797–1878) Electric motor; Galvanometer

Just After Darwin

• Richard Owen (1804–1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth compromiser)

• Matthew Maury (1806–1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably believed in an old-earth)

• Louis Agassiz (1807–1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist)

• Henry Rogers (1808–1866) Geology

• James Glaisher (1809–1903) Meteorology

• Philip H. Gosse (1810–1888) Ornithologist; Zoology

• Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810–1895) Archeologist

• James Simpson (1811–1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology

• James Dana (1813–1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser)

• Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817–1901) Agricultural Chemist

• James Joule (1818–1889) Thermodynamics

• Thomas Anderson (1819–1874) Chemist

• Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819–1900) Astronomy

• George Stokes (1819–1903) Fluid Mechanics

• John William Dawson (1820–1899) Geology (probably believed in an old-earth)

• Rudolph Virchow (1821–1902) Pathology

• Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) Genetics

• Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization

• Henri Fabre (1823–1915) Entomology of living insects

• William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted)

• William Huggins (1824–1910) Astral spectrometry

• Bernhard Riemann (1826–1866) Non-Euclidean geometries

• Joseph Lister (1827–1912) Antiseptic surgery

• Balfour Stewart (1828–1887) Ionospheric electricity

• James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics

• P.G. Tait (1831–1901) Vector analysis

• John Bell Pettigrew (1834–1908) Anatomist; Physiologist

• John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842–1919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert Gases

• Sir William Abney (1843–1920) Astronomy

• Alexander MacAlister (1844–1919) Anatomy

• A.H. Sayce (1845–1933) Archeologist

• John Ambrose Fleming (1849–1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve

I have no problem with microevolution, or, loss of information because of survival. A finch whose beak "evolves" based on the environment is still a finch. A moth whose wings "evolve" based on the environment is still a moth. Here we are talking about loss of information—loss of the “dark wing” gene or loss of the “small beak” gene. What creationists want to see is an example of matter giving rise to new information. No fossil records exist, however, which support macroevolution. Take horses. People have been able to breed all sorts of varieties from wild horses–big working horses, miniature toy ponies, and so on. But limits are soon reached, because selection can only work on what is already there. You can breed for horse varieties with white coats, brown coats and so forth, but no amount of breeding selection will ever generate a green-haired horse variety–the information for green hair does not exist in the horse population.

Note, too, many arguments for and against evolution include ad hominem arguments. If we could weed out the name-calling on both sides we could possibly get somewhere on this. Both those who believe in a creator, and those who believe in no creator, share the same evidence. The interpretation of that evidence is what differs.

So you see, these questions remain unanswered for me.

Agriculture, language, art, music, technology, and philosophy set humans apart from animals. The Neolithic Revolution took place about 10,000 years ago (when humans settled down and began to farm). I have often heard the question, “If humans evolved over a period of millions of years, why is it that we can only trace human civilization back only 10,000 years?” Sounds like the Neolithic Revolution squares with the Biblical account of creation.

EVOLUTION

Evolutionists teach we came from a common ancestral gene pool. But questions remain unanswered:

Why are kinds of animals stable?

Why are there gaps in fossil records? (actually, there are no fossil records, only fossils)

Why are there no imperceptible gradations from one form into another?

Why do we have a classification system?

Why are there unbridgeable gaps between kinds? A punctiliar model fits right in to the creationist’s explanation.[1]

The assemblage of genes in the parental chromosomes includes all possible factors, either dominant or recessive, which might possibly find expression in the progeny. Recombination does not introduce something new, but rearranges what is there.

Mutation is a change in the genetic structure. It should result in an overall upward progress in the evolutionary chain. However, the large majority are harmful, introducing a genetic load into the pool. Evolutionists believe the complexity of the entire organic world has been developed through this process. We have yet to find a mutation that increases genetic information, even in those rare instances where the mutation confers an advantage.

METHODS OF DATING

In order for radiometric dating to be accurate, rates must be uniform--decay rates must not change. The cosmic ray flux reaching the earth and shielding effect of the earth's atmosphere and magnetosphere must have never changed

Supernovas and reversal of earth's magnetosphere will increase the flux of high-energy neutrons. It has been 11 years since the supernova known as 1987A exploded with the force of billions of atomic bombs. The Hubble Space Telescope has captured images of the cosmic collision. 1987A is the brightest and closest supernova to come Earth's way in 400 years (CNN.com/Space, 11 Feb. 1998). This accelerates decay rates, thus resetting atomic clocks.

Other Methods:

Uranium-Lead: Lead has erupted with Uranium and crystallized.

Potassium-Argon: Argon is a gas and is transitory; lava flows which are positively known to have erupted in Hawaii January 1801 were tested with Potassium-Argon dating methods. Dates of 160,000,000 - 2,960,000,000 were obtained. Rocks absolutely known to be 200 years old dated almost 3 billion years of age. A similar (Potassium-Argon) measurement on lava flows from Kilauea (Hawaii) yielded similar results.[2]

C14: C14 is increasing at a rate of 25% faster than C12 (a steady-state would take 30,000 years), yielding a figure for the age of the atmosphere 7-12,000 years; a freshly killed seal dated by C14 showed it had died 1300 years ago.[3]

In Russia, 18 rock samples dated with radiometric dating procedures produced ages over a billion years old on lava flows which have known ages of less than 200 years. By using radiometric dating methods, samples of rock taken from the Grand Canyon in Arizona have produced dates younger than rock layers and layers below them. Living mollusk shells were dated at up to 2,300 years old. (Science, vol. 141, 1963, pp. 634-637.) Living snails' shells showed they had died 27,000 years ago.[4]

Every single dating method (outside of Scripture) is based on fallible assumptions. There are literally hundreds of dating tools. However, whatever dating method one uses, assumptions must be made about the past. Not one dating method man devises is absolute! Even though 90% of all dating methods give dates far younger than evolutionists require, none of these can be used in an absolute sense either. Why would any Christian want to take man’s fallible dating methods and use them to impose an idea on the infallible Word of God? Christians who accept billions of years are in essence saying that man’s word is infallible, but God’s Word is fallible!

If there were a world-wide flood, you would expect to find millions of dead things in layers of sediment all over the world. This is exactly what we find today—with no intermediate forms.

Parallax Shift, Cepheid Variable Stars, and other "Cosmic Yardsticks":

Australian theoretical physicist Professor Paul Davies has proposed that one of the so-called “constants” of the universe – the speed of light – has in fact slowed (c-decay) over time, a revelation that will cause a rethink of many of our accepted laws of physics as well as our “understanding” of the beginning of the universe.[5]

C-decay is not without its skeptics. However, other theories abound which can answer the question. It is fortunate that creationists did not invent such concepts such as gravitational time dilation, black and white holes, event horizons and so on, or we would likely be accused of manipulating the data to solve the problem. The interesting thing about this cosmology is that it is based upon mathematics and physics totally accepted by all cosmologists (general relativity), and it accepts (along with virtually all physicists) that there has been expansion in the past (though not from some imaginary tiny point). It requires no ‘massaging’—the results ‘fall out’ so long as one abandons the arbitrary starting point which the big bangers use (the unbounded cosmos idea, which could be called ‘what the experts don’t tell you about the “big bang”’).

LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS

In a closed system, matter cannot be created (matter and energy are conserved); "Ex nihilo nihil fit" (nothing comes from nothing). Furthermore, matter left to itself in a closed system is in a state of entropy; disorder comes from order (specified complexity). Crystals (such as ice and salt) have complexity, but not specified complexity. It would be as if I wrote the phrase, “love love love love love love.” It is complex, but means nothing. But to take the letters from a Scrabble box, toss them on the floor, and out pops the sentence, “For God so loved the world, he gave His only begotten son,” that’s specified complexity. It means something. Tornados running through junk yards do not normally assemble 747s.

CAUSATION

What is the uncaused cause of all causation?

MIRACLES

God can intervene to confirm a message or messenger (not a closed system). Miracles do not violate nature; they are introduced into nature, and nature accommodates them.

THEODICY

How could a just God allow evil in the world? Define evil. All suffer. Suffering develops character.

ALTRUISM

How is it altruism flies in the face of survival of the fittest.

[1] The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis (most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth), and 2. Sudden Appearance (the species appears all at once and "fully formed")

[2] C.S. Noble and J.J. Naughton, "Deep-Ocean Basalts: Inert Gas Content and Uncertainties in Age dating," Science, Vol. 162 [October 11, 1968, p. 265.

[3] Antarctic Journal, vol. 6, [September-October 1971], p. 211.